HL Deb 31 May 1934 vol 92 cc700-78

Order of the Day for the House to be again put into Committee read.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, in moving that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on the Betting and Lotteries Bill I desire to state that we are proposing to continue the debate on this Bill after dinner to-night.

Moved, That the House do now resolve into Committee.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 14:

Prohibition of betting With young persons.

14.—(1) If on any track—

  1. (a) any bookmaker or commission agent has any betting transaction with a person apparently under, or known to him to be under, the age of seventeen years; or
  2. (b) any person engaged in operating a totalisator has by means thereof any betting transaction with a person apparently under, or known to him to he under, the age of seventeen years,
then, in the first case, that bookmaker or commission agent and, in the second case, the occupier of the track on which the totalisator is set up, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Upon a charge under this section in respect of a person apparently under the age of seventeen years, it shall be a defence to prove that, at the time of the alleged offence, he had in fact attained that age.

LORD SANDERSON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "seventeen" and insert "eighteen." The noble Lord said: When I considered putting down this Amendment my first thought was to suggest the age of twenty-one, and I think that would not have been an unreasonable thing to do. I believe that betting transactions with persons under the age of twenty-one are illegal in many of our Dominions, and of course it is illegal in this country to invite young persons under twenty-one to make bets or to send them betting advertisements. Therefore, it would not have been unreasonable, I think, to ask the Government to substitute the age of twenty-one for seventeen in this clause, but with the moderation which I always display in your Lordships' House I am only asking for eighteen.

I shall no doubt be told that the age of seventeen has been selected because seventeen has been laid down in certain other Acts as the age of young persons. It may be desired to keep this Bill in line with other legislation on this point, but if that is the view of the Government I cannot believe that it is necessary to be quite so rigid as that. I cannot believe that the ingenuity of lawyers would not be able to devise a way out if that is the difficulty. Again, it may be said that there is not much difference between seventeen and eighteen. I think there really is a difference. That year would make quite a considerable difference. It, is well known that the effect of gambling on the character of young people is extraordinarily bad and that there has been a great increase in gambling by young people. Therefore it is important to keep them out of temptation as long as possible, especially at a time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said last night, there are so many young people without occupation and for that reason more exposed to temptation. I hope the noble Marquess will agree to accept my Amendment and so in quite a considerable way help in preventing deterioration of character in the coming generation.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 27, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("eighteen").—(Lord sanderson.)

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

I hope the Government will accept this Amendment because if it be a fact that greyhound racing is such a social menace as was described by the noble Marquess yesterday, it is clearly obvious that the people you want to exclude from that social menace are the young people. Quite apart from that fact young people are very gullible. After all, at the age of seventeen hardly a member of your Lordships' House had left his public school. It is well known that on any track, whether it be a horse racing track, a dog racing track, a motor racing track, or any other track, there are plenty of very plausible gentlemen going round inviting "pigeons," as I think they are called, to bet and to give them their money. I do think that this is a very necessary precaution. I myself would have preferred the age of twenty-one, as would my noble friend below me, but at any rate I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

I should like to support this Amendment. The evidence before the Royal Commission was very emphatic that young people were gravely injured by the prevalence of betting and gambling. Those who have attended dog racing tracks have been struck by the very large number of lads and young men between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one who crowd round the bookmakers and bet with them, and there is almost unanimous evidence from the managers of clubs in the poorer parts of our great towns that the increase of betting and gambling among boys has been very great. Some prohibition of this kind up to the age of eighteen is really of great importance.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord who sits opposite and supported by the right reverend Prelate is one certainly of great importance. It is an Amendment to which I do not feel unsympathetic. The noble Lord has spoken of rigidity. It is not really a question of rigidity but of uniformity. The Amendment proposes that a book maker or totalisator operator on a track shall not have any betting transaction with a person under eighteen years of age, instead of any person under seventeen years of age, as proposed in the Bill. I think your Lordships will agree that it is undesirable to have juvenile protection extending to one age for one purpose and to another age for another purpose. The Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, prohibits any betting transactions on an approved horse racecourse with young persons under seventeen years of age; and the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, defines a "child" as a person under the age of fourteen years and a "young person" as a person who has attained the age of fourteen years and is under the age of seventeen years. When one finds that for a great many purposes persons under seventeen years are being subject to special protection, it is undesirable (without very special cause) to substitute a different age for an isolated form of protection.

I know exactly what is the desire of those who suggest eighteen and hope that it will be twenty-one. It is to protect young people from the ravages which can be said to accrue to those who indulge in betting. I am not certain that any age limit would satisfy some of those people. A great many of them who are against betting in all forms would like to put the age limit higher and keep everybody off racecourses. But as the age of seventeen has been laid down in so many cases I think it would be unfortunate to change it to eighteen in this Bill. As, however, I agree so much with the object of the Amendment I certainly will not shut the door upon it. The matter can be considered, and if it is thought advisable that it should be accepted after further consideration of its merits, I will certainly mention it again on the Report stage.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBRDE

I am very glad to hear the noble Marquess's remark at the end of his speech, and my noble friend certainly will not press the Amendment now if we may have an assurance that it will be reconsidered before the Report stage. I felt that in his remarks the noble Marquess was entirely sympathetic to the Amendment and that it was only the tidiness and uniformity of Government offices which was preventing him from accepting it. But we are grateful to him for that assurance, and I will ask my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

We all sympathise, I am sure, with the general idea of the Amendment, but I would like to point out that under the standing orders of the Greyhound Racing Totalisator Control Board it is provided that a member on whose racecourse a totalisator is in operation shall have no transaction by means of the totalisator with a person apparently under the age of seventeen, and also I would point out that if it is brought to the notice of the National Greyhound Racing Club that any betting with juveniles takes place on a licensed track, the licence issued to such track may be withdrawn entirely and immediately. That is really why I was asking yesterday to have some kind of control, I do not say necessarily in that particular manner, but unless you get control over all the tracks it will be extremely difficult to carry out the Act.

LORD RHAYADER

May I express the hope that the noble Marquess will not be too much influenced by a desire to maintain uniformity? I am afraid that the extension of the totalisator to greyhound racing will inevitably mean a considerable extension of betting, and therefore if it is a case of making a new rule, when all the evidence points to the fact that boys under the age of eighteen years, with very few opportunities at the present time for finding work, go to these greyhound race meetings in very large numbers, it appears to me that it is most desirable in their interests and in the interests of the nation to put the age as high as you reasonably can. I do not think anybody will contend that eighteen is too high to fix the age at which the provision of betting facilities should begin. If uniformity is desirable I should suggest that opportunity should on some future occasion be taken to amend the Acts previously passed.

LORD SANDERSON

I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his undertaking to reconsider the matter before the Report stage. I should also like to apologise to him and to the House for using a wrong word: I used the word "rigid" when of course "uniform" was what I meant. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD POLWARTH moved to insert the following new subsection: (5) Any person who causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure any young person under the age of seventeen to convey or deliver any slip, note or message, verbal or written, which relates to any bet or wager, or to convey or deliver any information, advice or money for the purpose of making or procuring the making of any bet or wager, or which relates to any bet or wager already made, to any bookmaker, and any bookmaker who accepts from a young person any such slip, note, message, information, advice or money, shall each be guilty of an offence.

The noble Lord said: My object in patting down this somewhat long Amendment is to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting which will be found in paragraph 379 on page 112 of their Report, which reads: Police witnesses and other witnesses suggested the application to England of the Betting (Juvenile Messengers) (Scotland) Act, 1928, which prohibits the use of persons under sixteen years of age in the conveyance of bets. We have reason to believe that many boakmakers in England would welcome a prohibition of the employment of child messengers by backers. We consider that the Scottish Act of 1928 is a useful measure. We recommend, for the sake of uniformity with our proposal in paragraph 378, that the provisions of the Act should apply to persons under seventeen, instead of sixteen years of age. The provisions of the Act, thus amended, should apply to England and Wales as well as to Scotland.

I think that this Amendment really speaks for itself. I believe that the Act works quite well in Scotland. Of course there must be many cases in which child messengers succeed in conveying messages without being detected. They are not all so simple as the messenger in a case which I recently observed reported in the Press, where a small child, the bearer of a betting slip from its mother, timidly approached a policeman on duty, and said: "Please, Sir, where can I find the bookie?" The result was inquiries by the policeman as to who had sent the child, which resulted in the prosecution of the parent. I rather think that the mother got off with an admonition.

I may be told by the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill that this Amend- ment was inapplicable as it applies mainly to the carrying of messages off the track; but it seems to me that it might quite well apply to a person sending a message by a small boy to a bookmaker within the premises of the track. People would know that they would find him there and they might quite well send a message. With those words I leave the matter in the hands of the Committee. I feel that we are all at one in desiring to save children from being mixed up in this business more than can be helped. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 2, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Polwarth.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, because it really is one which deals more, as he said himself, with off-the-course betting. I am also given to understand that the use of young persons in the conveyance of betting slips is not believed to be a problem on the track, so I hope the noble Lord will accept what I say, that this really is a matter which is included in off-the-course betting, and I hope he will feel that the Amendment is really not applicable here. Off-the-course betting is not included in this Bill: this is a smaller measure than that, and I do feel that this particular provision is so closely associated with off-the-course betting, that it is really not relevant to the Bill which is now before your Lordships.

LORD POLWARTH

After that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

LORD SANDERSON moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause: .It shall be unlawful for any bookmaker or commission agent to employ in any business connected with betting any person under the age of eighteen.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of somewhat the same character as the last two Amendments which we have discussed. I am rather surprised that those responsible for the Bill have not dealt with this matter, which was of course before the Royal Commission and upon which the Royal Commission made a definite recommendation. If it is a bad thing for children under seventeen to have anything to do with betting, it is surely a bad thing for them to be employed by bookmakers and to be right in the midst of the betting atmosphere. The noble Marquess may say that this is ruled out on the ground that it comes under off-the-course betting, but I do not think that it can quite be dismissed in that way, because trying to prevent bookmakers employing young people under seventeen or eighteen years of age on the course is rather different from the other cases which we have had. I therefore hope that the Government will consider the Amendment and accept it, and so make it illegal for bookmakers to employ children under the age of eighteen. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sanderson.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I think the same arguments apply to this Amendment as to the previous Amendments. The question of differentiating between the ages of seventeen and eighteen is a very difficult matter, as the noble Lord knows quite well. I have pointed out that there are many Acts of Parliament which have taken seventeen as the particular age. As I have said on previous Amendments, this is a matter which is being carefully considered, but it is surrounded with great difficulty. If the noble Lord will allow me to leave it at that, I will ask him to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD SANDERSON

Of course it rather depends on the decision of the noble Marquess on the other Amendments. If he cannot go beyond seventeen with regard to young persons generally, I would of course accept seventeen in relation to this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD POLWARTH moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause: It shall be unlawful to admit any child under the age of fourteen (or such age as may from time to time be fixed at which a parent ceases to be under an obligation to cause him to attend school) to any track, as defined in the Bill, where betting by way of bookmaking or by means of a totalisator is carried on.

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should like to repeat what I stated to a very small number of your Lordships at a very late hour last night, that I would never have presumed to move this Amendment as it were on my own account. I am not so presumptuous as to suppose that my interest in the welfare of children and young people is greater than that of any other member of your Lordships' House. I am certain that every one of us is anxious to safeguard, as far as possible, the young people of to-day from the many and grave dangers and temptations which beset them, no matter to what class of life they belong. But in moving this Amendment I am not speaking only on my own behalf, but on behalf of the Scottish National Council of Juvenile Organisations, of which I have the honour to be Chairman. That body has on it representatives of all the organisations which take a leading part in promoting the welfare of young people—scouts, guides, Y.M.C.A. and many similar organisations —and also members representing educational and other interests. That body has for many years been watching and considering the dangers and bad effects of betting and gambling upon young people. In fact, as they say in their resolution, for the last ten years they have been considering many aspects of this question and wondering what can be done to deal with it. They are grateful for many provisions of this Bill which are in accordance with the resolutions that they passed, but they are urging very strongly that no child below the school age should be allowed to he present on any race track.

We have a precedent for this. Children are not allowed to enter a public house, and no objection is taken to that. As a matter of fact it is not, I believe, the practice for children to attend a race meeting. I made it my business to visit a track last Monday night in the City of Edinburgh. I had heard about the happy family parties which frequented such gatherings, but the whole crowd—it was a comparatively small one—was made up of very seedy looking youths, about eighteen to twenty years of age, either unemployed or unemployable. There were very few women there, two or three girls, and hardly any middle-aged men. I do not think we wish that children so early in life should be initiated into all that unfortunately takes place on these race tracks. I am, of course, only speaking of children of school age. School children have plenty to occupy and engross their minds without having them distracted by racing. They have, or ought to have, their own organised games and interests, and they will be all the better if they are not allowed to frequent these racing tracks. I very much hope that the Government will give really serious consideration to this matter and will recognise that it is the universal desire so far as I have been able to ascertain of persons interested in the welfare of children that they should be saved from the dangers and evils that are so unfortunately connected with these racing tracks. I beg to move this Amendment as earnestly as I possibly can, and I appeal to noble Lords who have the interests of the young at heart to support this Amendment.

Amendment moved— After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Polwarth.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Naturally none of us would wish to see children under fourteen going to these race meetings. Personally I do not bet, and I am not interested from that point of view, but the noble Lord himself has told us that he went to one meeting and could not see any school children there. He has mentioned various pious resolutions from societies in Scotland, but not one has stated that it saw any children under fourteen years of age on these race tracks. If they are not attending these race tracks there is no offence, and I cannot see the use of cramming this Bill with what I might almost call a bogus Amendment, which does not function and is not needed. It is unnecessary to include it in the Bill. The noble Lord took a great deal of trouble to say that it is for school children only. The main thing is that these meetings are held at night. Publicly controlled courses do not want these children there, and on the non-controlled courses, one of which the noble Lord attended, they do not seem to be present.

LORD POLWARTH

I do not know whether it was controlled or not.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I do, because it was reported that the noble Lord went there. These races, as I have said, are held at night, and the children ought to be in bed; in the day they are at school. Although I am in sympathy with the object of the noble Lord I think his Amendment is unnecessary.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

The speech of the noble Duke to which we have just listened is really very strongly in favour of the Amendment. He says he does not wish children to attend racing tracks, that the Greyhound Racing Association does not wish them to go there, and, that, it is bad for them to attend. In those circumstances why not pass the Amendment? After all greyhound racing does take place on Saturday afternoons, when children can go. We are agreed that it is undesirable they should attend these tracks, and therefore why not pass this Amendment?

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

In the discussion it seems to have been assumed that this Amendment will only apply to greyhound racing tracks, but if you look at the definition clause at the end of the Bill, Clause 18, you will see that "'track' means premises on which races of any description, athletic sports or other sporting events take place." I do not think the mover of the Amendment really means to exclude children from places where other sports are taking place, even if a bookmaker did happen to be present, nor, from my own experience, do I think it is at all necessary to exclude children from a field in which point-to-point racing is taking place, merely because a bookmaker may happen to be in another part of the field. I think the Amendment goes farther than is necessary in the interest which the noble Lord has at heart.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I do not think that any one will disagree with the object which the noble Lord has in view. We know quite well that it is not in the interests of a child's physical health that it should attend a track for several hours at night, and in all weathers, and it is hardly a proper part of its education that it should be introduced to the paraphernalia of betting at an early age. The Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting received a good deal of evidence about the presence of children and young persons at greyhound tracks. The problem appears to be more acute in Scotland than it is in England. I should, however, like to point out the limits to the extent of this problem. In the first place it was established before the Royal Commission that the great majority of the children at dog tracks attend under the charge of parents and adults. Unaccompanied children are kept out of most tracks, mainly of course because they are a nuisance to the management, who do not desire that up-attended children should be wandering about a racecourse.

In the second place the Bill proposes in Clause 14 that it should be an offence to bet with persons under seventeen, either by means of bookmaking or by means of the totalisator. In substance, therefore, the question before the House is whether children who are under the charge of adults and who will not be allowed to engage in betting should be excluded from tracks licensed for betting. We take the view that the prohibition of betting with young persons under seventeen goes a long way to deal with the mischiefs of the attendance of young persons at these tracks; but if the House feels strongly that the provisions in the Bill are not sufficient we will consider the matter further on Report. One matter which would have to be considered further is whether it would not make administration difficult to have children under fourteen kept out of the tracks, young persons from fourteen to seventeen admitted but not allowed to bet, and persons over seventeen admitted and allowed to bet, On the whole, I would ask the House to rely on the existing provisions in the Bill prohibiting betting with persons under seventeen to check the evils which admittedly exist.

LORD POLWARTH

In view of the statement of the noble Marquess I think the Committee will probably desire me to withdraw the Amendment. With reference to what the noble Marquess said regarding unaccompanied children, there is nothing at present to prevent the owners of an impecunious racecourse—and yesterday we were told that many were impecunious—from admitting unaccompanied children for the sake of the money they could bring in. There is the further danger which might arise that special attractions might possibly be offered by unprincipled owners of tracks in order to bring children in and get the gate money which otherwise they would lose. But, as the Government have promised to reconsider the matter of the admission of children and young people, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15:

Revocation of licences.

15.—(1) A licensing authority may at any time, after giving to the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard, revoke a, licence in respect of a track in their licensing area—

  1. (a) if they are satisfied that the track has been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance; or
  2. (b) if on a report made to them by the accountant appointed under the First Schedule to this Act, or upon a refusal of that accountant to give such a certificate as is mentioned in the said Schedule, they are satisfied that any totalisator on the track has been maintained or operated otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that Schedule; or
  3. (c) if the holder of the licence is convicted of any offence (whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act) in connection with the management of the track;
and, if they revoke a licence, shall forthwith send notice of the revocation by post to the holder of the licence.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a), to insert: (b) if without their approval, to he given after such notice as they deem proper, the accommodation for spectators on the track as stated in the notice under subsection (2) of Section five of this Act has been substantially increased, or the exits from the track as described in that notice have been materially altered, and they are satisfied that undue congestion of traffic or serious prejudice to the preservation of law and order has resulted therefrom; or

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on the Government Amendment to Clause 5, page 2, line 31. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 9, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Feversharm.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 18, after ("licence") insert ("or, where the holder is a corporate body, any director or the manager thereof").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to leave out "(whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act)" and insert "under this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: The noble Marquess in the case of Clause 6, subsection (1) (b), regarding an application for a licence, was unable to accept similar words applying to that very odd clause, and that clause has not got, as the Bill stands, any possibility of appeal. In this case, which is the case of the revocation of a licence, there is an appeal allowed. Therefore, there is the discretion not only of the licensing authority but also, in necessary cases, of the Quarter Sessions. In these circumstances I do not move the Amendment.

LORD JESSEL moved, at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to insert "or of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty." The noble Lord said: The Government accepted similar words on Clause 6. I understand that they will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 21, after ("track") insert the said words.—(Lord Jessel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "and to the chief officer of Police." The noble Earl said: This Amendment provides that where a licensing authority has revoked a licence it shall send notice of such revocation to the chief officer of Police, in addition to the holder of the licence as proposed by the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 [Amendment and interpretation of Racecourse Betting Act,1928]:

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to insert the following new subsection: (4) The purposes for which the Racecourse Betting Control Board, acting under paragraph (6) of Section three of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, may, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Secretary of State, apply moneys comprised in the totalisator fund shall include purposes conducive to the advancement and encouragement of veterinary science and education.

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is that veterinary science and education may be included among the purposes to which the profits of the totalisator under the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, may be devoted. At present these purposes are limited by that Act to "purposes conducive to the improvement of breeds of horses or the sport of horse racing." I should have thought that the advance of veterinary science and education would have been advantageous to the breeding of horses, but we have been advised that there is at all events considerable doubt upon that point. I am sure your Lordships will agree that there is no more suitable object to be found for the spending of money than that.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The Government will be pleased to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following new clause.

Saving for totalisator and bookmaking at motor race meetings licensed by Royal Automobile Club.

".—(1) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply to betting on the results of motor races run on a motor racing track licensed by the Royal Automobile Club and nothing in this Act or any other enactment or rule of law shall prevent the provision of betting facilities for the purpose only of betting on the results Qf such motor races by the setting up and operation of a totalisator or by bookmaking carried on by bookmakers by leave of the lessees of the track and under such conditions as they may impose.

(2) On any motor racing track where a totalisator is operated the conditions under which it may be operated shall include a condition that the person by whom the totalisator is operated shall distribute or cause to be distributed the whole of the moneys staked on any race or races by means of the totalisator among the persons winning bets made by means of the totalisator on that race or those races after deducting or causing to be deducted not more than ten per cent, of such moneys.

(3) If and whenever leave is given by the lessees of any motor racing track for the provision of betting facilities on any such motor racing track space shall be made available on the track for bookmakers to carry on bookmaking in connection with the motor races run on the track subject to such conditions for securing good behaviour as the said lessees may think fit to impose and the charge made to any bookmaker for admission to the track or a specified portion thereof to carry on bookmaking shall not be higher than the charge made in like circumstances to any other bookmaker for that purpose."

The noble Duke said: This Amendment, which I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cottenham, is very much the same as the new clause after Clause 18, an Amendment down in my own name. With the leave of the House I will take them together. I have a short note with regard to the matter by the Secretary of the Aero Club, and it applies to both these Amendments. Therefore I will read it: The object of this clause is to keep aerodromes and aeroplane races outside the scope of Part I of the Bill. The definition of 'track' in Clause 18, page 16, line 16, is as follows: '"track" means premises on which races of any description, athletic sports or other sporting events take place'; and the effect of the preceding Clauses 1 to 16 is to prohibit betting on a track except under a licence granted by the local authority, and subject to all the conditions laid down in those clauses. The Royal Aero Club are the representative body controlling all aeroplane races, and in the past it has been their practice to permit betting on the races at the aerodromes. The facilities so provided have been much appreciated by supporters who come to watch the start or finish of racing, and no complaint has ever been made that any other control for the betting is required than that provided by the Club. With regard to the totalisator it may be convenient to make provision for this as an alternative to bookmaking, and clubs are advised that unless some provision is made in the Bill giving sanction for the totalisator the decisions of the Courts under the Betting Acts would prevent a totalisator being operated at an aerodrome. Exactly the same thing applies to Brook-lands, and in each case the manufacturers concerned are in favour of reasonable betting under proper control. I shall not say any more than that because I do not want to delay the Committee.

Amendment moved— After Clause 17, insert the said new clause.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The Amendment which the noble Duke has moved in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cottenham, and the similar Amendment which comes in his own name later on, are really more far-reaching than the speech of the noble Duke would lead us to suppose. The Bill sets up an elaborate scheme for regulating the provision of betting facilities on the course, and as the Bill is drafted the system of regulation is to be applied to all tracks alike on which races of any description, athletic sports or other sporting events take place. The effect of this Amendment would be to exempt altogether from the scheme of control prescribed in the Bill tracks on which motor races are run if the tracks are licensed by the Royal Automobile Club. There would be no limit to the number of days on which betting facilities could be provided on such tracks, although horse racing, dog racing and all forms of athletic sports would remain subject to a statutory annual maximum number of betting days. It would be open to the Royal Automobile Club to license as many motor racing tracks as they thought fit, and there would be nothing to prevent the management of such tracks from conducting or allowing betting facilities thereon every day of the week.

One of the main objects of the Bill is to impose such restrictions as are thought to be reasonably necessary in the public interest on the provision of organised facilities for continuous gambling, and if this Amendment were accepted one of the main purposes of the Bill would be defeated. The Amendment would put it in the power of a private and unofficial body such as the Royal Automobile Club to decide the extent to which gambling facilities on certain types of track should be allowed, and in the Government's view this question of public policy is a matter for the decision of some responsible public body, acting under the guidance of general principles laid down by Parliament. I think I have shown to your Lordships that this Amendment will affect one of the main objects of the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will join with the Government in resisting it.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I would remind the noble Marquess that there is a good deal of difference between dog racing tracks and the Royal Aero Club and the Royal Automobile Club, which exist to a very great extent to bring out new machines and to encourage a great trade; and where meetings are held, not for the purpose of betting, but for the purpose I have mentioned, there is a great deal of difference between such a track and a dog racing track, which exists solely and only, as far as I can make out, for the purpose of betting.

LORD STRABOLGI

May I ask the noble Duke if it has occurred to him that a great many people object to betting on aeroplane races because it may lead to loss of life, and that the same thing also applies to motor racing? Many of us look upon it as very objectionable to have gambling in any form connected with motor racing or air racing.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

That may be so, but both official bodies have suggested there should be betting.

LORD STRABOLGI

With great respect to the noble Duke I have had a good deal to do with both bodies, especially with the Royal Aero Club, and while I appreciate all they have done for sport, I am both surprised and disappointed to hear they have officially put forward a plea for betting on aeroplane racing in this country.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Illegality of lotteries]:

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Before this clause is passed I should be glad if the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill would describe to the House what he means by a lottery, as the words in the clause, "all lotteries," seem to me to be rather sweeping. It is just as well that the public should know not only what constitutes an offence such as we find in this Bill, but also what constitutes a lottery. My reason for asking this is that ignorance on this point may lead virtuous people astray and involve them in a heavy fine and imprisonment. For instance, all members of your Lordships' House have received a notice of a ballot, of which apparently the Lord Chancellor is the promoter. They have been asked to sub- scribe 7s. 6d. each for the chance of obtaining a prize in the shape of a seat for the ceremony of Trooping the Colour on June 4. All the money subscribed is to go to expenses. The money is to be enclosed with the application, and in no circumstances will the money be returned, although it is not known whether the amount received will be sufficient to pay for the erection of the stands or whether it will be in excess of the amount required. Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell me in what way this so-called ballot differs from a lottery. If it does not, I feel that I should warn a certain high dignitary of this House as well as the Secretary to the War Office that lotteries promoted for good or national objects in this country are not always looked upon favourably by the authorities, and that the Police, while they are active in these days, sometimes exceed their instructions.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The noble Duke has asked me a specific question as to what is a definition of a lottery. I should have thought that the noble Duke could have enlightened your Lordships on that point and could have given us a specific definition himself, but I have now had placed in my hands a definition of a lottery which is: "A scheme for the distribution of prizes by lot or chance."

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

That, I understand, is the same as a ballot.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20:

Offences in connection with lotteries.

20.—(1) Subject to the provisions of his section, every person who in connection with any lottery promoted or proposed to be promoted either in Great Britain or elsewhere—

  1. (a) prints any tickets for use in the lottery; or

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "lottery," to insert "except as regards printing elsewhere." The noble Duke said: The purpose of this Amendment, if the Government think it necessary, is that a printer should not be prevented from printing tickets for foreign lotteries or sweepstakes which, to all appearances, are not intended for circulation in Great Britain and which are not likely to offend against our laws. It would certainly be a restriction on a perfectly legitimate trade, in which our printers excel, if we were to put difficulties in their way as has been suggested. Quite possibly this is dealt with under subsection (2), and if the noble Marquess will assure me that this point is covered, then I will withdraw this Amendment. It is quite a friendly Amendment, and I am not quite certain whether it does not go further than was intended.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 39, after ("lottery") insert ("except as regards printing elsewhere").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I am not quite clear as to the noble Duke's intention, but I presume he means that the printing of tickets outside Great Britain should not be an offence. If this is the object he has in mind the Amendment is quite unnecessary, as all the offences under Clause 20 must be committed in Great Britain.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

The printing has got to be done before the offence is committed. Supposing there was a sweepstake in some foreign country: there is no reason why our printers should not print the tickets so long as they are honest people and it is not against the law in this country. I am not quite certain whether it is covered in a later Amendment I am going to press.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

May I ask the noble Marquess whether foreign premium bonds which might be printed in this country for foreign Governments would not come under this Bill?

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I will make inquiries.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If the noble Marquess makes inquiries before Report I shall be content.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21:

Exemption of small lotteries incidental to certain entertainments.

21.—(1) A lottery promoted as an incident of an entertainment to which this section applies shall be deemed not to be an unlawful lottery, but the conditions specified in the next succeeding subsection shall be observed in connection with the promotion and conduct of the lottery, and, if any of those conditions is broken, every person con- cerned in the promotion or conduct of the lottery shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge.

(2) The conditions referred to in the preceding subsection are that—

  1. (a) the whole proceeds of the entertainment (including the proceeds of the lottery) after deducting all expenses, not being expenses incurred in connection with the lottery, shall be devoted to purposes other than private gain;
  2. (c) tickets or chances in the lottery shall not be sold or issued, nor shall the result of the lottery be declared, except on the premises on which the entertainment takes place and during the progress of the entertainment; and

(3) The entertainments to which this section applies are bazaars, sales of work, fetes and other entertainments of a similar character, whether limited to one day or extending over two or more days.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out "not being expenses incurred in connection with the lottery." The noble Duke said: The whole of this subsection is rather involved, but I assume that it means there are to be no expenses incurred in connection with the lottery, and that otherwise such expenses might be wrongfully buried in the proceeds of the entertainment. But I would point out that tickets have to be printed, and therefore some expenses must go towards lotteries. Sometimes it is the custom to purchase an article at a cheap rate and sell it at an enhanced price for the benefit of the bazaar or entertainment. I hope, for this reason, the words to which I object will be omitted as being quite unnecessary in small transactions of this kind.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 25, leave out "not being expenses incurred in connection with the lottery").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The existing provisions in the Bill are to the effect that in the case of those small lotteries, promoted as an incident to a bazaar or sale of work, which are to be made legal, the whole proceeds must be devoted to purposes other than private gain and that no deduction must be made for expenses in running the lotteries. The noble Duke's Amendment would allow expenses to be deducted. The provision that no expenses must be charged for the promotion of the lottery, as your Lordships will see, is the main safeguard to ensure that the exemption operates only in favour of those harmless raffles and things of that sort at charity bazaars and the like for which it is intended. If private gain is allowed to enter, under colour of expenses or otherwise, then the exemption will attract those individuals who make a living by lottery promotion, whose activities the noble Duke from his personal experience deplored in his Second Reading speech, and all manner of undesirable schemes will be liable to be promoted.

The noble Duke, I am sure, sees the great difficulty in which we are placed. We have to look round the whole question and see that we do not, by some apparently harmless words incorporated in an Amendment, open the door for something which he himself desires to prohibit just as much as we do. No expenses are necessary in the promotion of bazaar raffles and undertakings of that description. I would certainly ask the Committee to reject this Amendment and would give them an undertaking that the Government would introduce an Amendment on the Report stage which would allow the expenses incurred in the printing of tickets for bazaar raffles to be admitted. That seems to me the only possible legitimate expense which can be incurred with a raffle of this description. This Amendment, which I am foreshadowing, would, therefore, bring the scheme for bazaar lotteries into closer line with the scheme for club lotteries which comes later on in the Bill. I hope, therefore, the noble Duke will not press his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I only meant printing and stationery.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to omit all words down to and including "except" in paragraph (c) in subsection (2) and to insert "the result of the lottery shall be declared." The noble Duke said: My Amendment suggests that the words from "tickets" to "except" inclusive should be deleted and the words "the result of the lottery shall be declared" inserted in their place. It does seem rather absurd that for such small entertainments or bazaars, to which alone this clause refers, tickets should be allowed to be sold only on the premises. It surely is in your Lordships' knowledge that it is a constant practice for people to undertake to sell a book beforehand, and in small communities it may be the only way of raising sufficient money for the purpose of the bazaar or entertainment. As I have said, since it only refers to small entertainments, it seems to be a rather hard and unnecessary provision. People may adjourn to dinner from a bazaar and may sell some tickets at a neighbouring house perfectly innocently. It seems absurd not to allow such a thing to be done. It is also hard that no one should be allowed to sell tickets round a neighbourhood for small affairs.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 30, leave out from ("(c)" to the first ("on") in line 32 and insert ("the result of the lottery shall be declared)".—(The Duke of Atholl.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The Bill proposes that tickets in a small lottery promoted at bazaars and sales of work of the type allowed under Clause 21 shall only be issued and sold at the bazaar or sale of work. The noble Duke proposes that this requirement should be deleted. The result would be that the lottery could become a public lottery in which tickets could be hawked from door to door or sold in the streets without any restriction whatsoever, and the professional lottery promoter could evade the general prohibition of large-scale lotteries by the simple expedient of conducting his lottery as an incident of a bazaar which he had organised specially for this purpose. The connection with the bazaar would be simply that the drawing was arranged to take place there. The noble Duke's proposal, especially if coupled with his earlier proposal that expenses should be allowed in the conduct of those lotteries, would mean that large public lotteries could be promoted under the guise of this exemption framed in favour of small schemes such as raffles.

As your Lordships are aware, the Government, having decided that large lotteries are undesirable, cannot agree to any proposal which would have the result of enabling large schemes to be promoted under cover of the exemptions for club sweepstakes and bazaar raffles. Even under the noble Duke's own scheme it would be ridiculous that large lotteries should be promoted by virtue of Clause 21 as amended by him when, in a later new clause, he is proposing that large lotteries should only be promoted by the State or under licence of the Secretary of State subject to rigid conditions. If, as the Government propose, the sale of tickets in the exempted lotteries under Clause 21 is confined to the bazaar or sale of work in connection with which the lottery is promoted, the other requirements can be reduced to a minimum. This is highly desirable, since there are manifest objections to any scheme under which the raffling of articles left unsold at a bazaar should be subject to a long catalogue of conditions. In these circumstances I think your Lordships will agree that this Amendment cannot be accepted.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I would suggest that it is surely not difficult to find some machinery to prevent it developing into what the noble Marquess calls a national lottery or something of that sort. I am only thinking of some small church bazaar or village bazaar. It is always for something in kind and never for any valuable prize. It would be easy to say that the value should not be more than a certain sum. I think the Government might think out something which would cover the point.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

It seems to me that there is something false in the Government's argument. It is suggested that it should be perfectly legal to have a small lottery in the rectory garden and illegal to have a slightly larger one somewhere else. There is no sound principle in it—especially when one remembers that quite unconsciously the small lottery is often far more dishonestly run than the larger one. I hope the Government will consider this rather more carefully. I have one particular lottery in mind which has raised very large sums for charity with the minimum of expense and was only stopped by the action of a common informer some three or four years ago. It seems a pity that such a lottery should not be allowed to go on. In that particular case it was run in connection with a three days' fête and tickets were sold all over the South of England. I hope the Government will consider the ethics of the case, if I may so put it, and will allow the larger lottery as well as the small one, under proper safeguards that there should be no private profit.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The noble Earl has made a speech which seems to imply that the officials of the Home Office have taken no steps to consider this matter carefully. By far the easiest course we could pursue would be to prohibit raffles altogether, and I am sure that would receive support from many members of your Lordships' House; but taking into account the fact that the public do not believe that raffles are harmful we have spent a good deal of time in endeavouring to see that raffles are made as harmless as possible. I think the noble Earl should appreciate—I think the noble Duke does appreciate—that we have put forward proposals in quite good faith for dealing with this matter. Immense schemes might be put forward if an Amendment which appears to be of a very harmless character is inserted in the Bill. I would venture to ask for the noble Earl's commiseration rather than his criticism in dealing with a matter which bristles with difficulties. I would invite the noble Earl to help us instead of suggesting that the officials of the Home Office are so lax that they have not taken proper trouble to consider this subject.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I was only suggesting that a somewhat larger lottery might do no more harm than a small lottery.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

It might perhaps meet the convenience of your Lordships if we adjourn the discussion at this point and resume our duties at 9.15.

[The sitting was suspended at five minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine o'clock.]

LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (3), after "entertainments," to insert "affording scope for skill and." The noble Lord said: When we adjourned I had ringing in my ears the remarks of the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill about the great efficiency of his advisers at the Home Office, with every word of which I entirely agreed. When I move this Amendment, which is of an exploratory nature, I do not want the noble Marquess to suppose for a moment that I consider that these things have been overlooked, but the unfortunate lieges outside, the simple people who find themselves on occasions quite unexpectedly prosecuted—I do not refer here to the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, but to other people who find themselves within the clutches of the law when they never expected it—are very puzzled indeed about the meaning of certain clauses of this Bill, including Clause 21. Therefore I have put down this Amendment to add the words which appear on the Order Paper to subsection (3) of this clause.

If your Lordships will look at subsection (3) as drawn you will see that it says: The entertainments to which this section applies are bazaars, sales of work, fêtes, and other entertainments of a similar character… I take the word "entertainments" to mean amusements at fêtes, sales of work, and so on, and I am going to move to insert the words "affording scope for skill and". With that addition the subsection would read: The entertainments to which this section applies are bazaars, sales of work, fêtes and other etnertainments affording scope for skill and or a similar character… It might be read into my Amendment that I was pretending that sales of work afforded scope for skill, but that is not the intention at all. As a matter of fact, any one who has organised a sale of work knows that it takes not only a great deal of skill but a great deal of tact, and that if you get through the organisation of a bazaar or anything of that kind without making a dozen mortal enemies, you are very fortunate. But leaving that aside my Amendment must be read with a later Amendment which I have proposed to the Second Schedule, to deal with the Gaming Act, 1853, which is the most extraordinary Act on the Statute Book, I believe, as regards drafting, but to which I will not refer at this moment.

My object is really to get a declaration from the Government that the fears of certain people who operate various entertainments are not well grounded, in that they will not come within the scope of the Bill and be liable to prosecution. The entertainments to which I refer are those which were familiar to many of your Lordships in your younger and perhaps happier days on village fair grounds. I think the most simple and obviously the most harmless of all is the cocoanut shy. There is no money prize there; the prize is a cocoanut. I dare say the noble Marquess remembers having enjoyed himself in his younger days throwing wooden balls at cocoanuts. Is that an exercise of skill? I know that the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, has not forgotten his cocoanuts on those village fair grounds. But now we come to other forms of entertainment, where the prize is not a cocoanut but a clock or a lady's handbag. There is an entertainment known as "Aunt Sally." During the War "Aunt Sally" was the Kaiser or the Crown Prince of Germany; to-day "Aunt Sally" is the Prime Minister or Mr. Hitler or some other prominent person. A clay pipe is inserted in the month of this figure, and the lieges enjoy themselves very much throwing wooden balls and trying to break the clay pipe. When they have broken the clay pipe they get a clock or some other prize. Apparently these people are going to be liable to prosecution.

But I am going to take the matter a little further. It appears that there is an entertainment—a game—of semi-skill called the "Bombing Aeroplane." This will be of particular importance in the mind of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Air. He obviously wants to have an air-minded people and I dare say he is not averse from seeing the people playing with these means of entertainment. The aeroplane, I understand, is flown across the machine and if you are sufficiently skilful to drop its bombs inside the clock tower or the church tower or whatever it is, you gef a small prize or you get your money back. I am advised by learned counsel who advise the amusement caterers and travelling showmen and others who make their living in this way, that the Bill will still further strengthen the law against them. Indeed, I am told that the game of darts in the village inn—in which, as your Lordships will know, there is a target marked with numbers, and those frequenting the inn each have a dart and they play a game or a competition and I suppose the loser pays for the drinks, or there is a small prize, or they pool their stakes or whatever it is—may come within the provisions of this Bill.

Are these people engaging in an illegal lottery? Are they engaging in gaming? Is the Bill intended to apply to them? The noble Marquess has said that he is not dealing with off-the-course betting in this Bill, but he has already proposed to your Lordships' House, and he has successfully proposed, to exempt the pari mutuel and the football pool. I suggest that the situation is at present very complicated indeed and needs clearing up. The object, therefore, in moving this Amendment, which must be read in conjunction with my proposed Amendment to the Schedule later on, is to know whether the Government intend to leave things as they are with regard to these games of semi-skill, where a certain element of skill enters in. I am sure that not one of the occupants of the Ecclesiastical Bench in your Lordships' House nor one social reformer will ever maintain that any one has been ruined or morally damaged by these harmless games of semi-skill played or competed in for prizes usually of quite small value.

The actual words which I have put down may be not very well drafted, but then a great deal of this Bill is not very well drafted. It may be that the noble Marquess or his advisers have some better form of words, in which case I will be quite content to accept them. I only want to be perfectly certain that the harmless games that I have described, such as the "Bombing Aeroplane," "Aunt Sally," the game of darts and so on, will not create a new offence as illegal lotteries, and that people whom I am sure it is not intended by the Government to damage will not find themselves prosecuted by perhaps over-officious local authorities for unwittingly breaking the law as laid down in this Bill which is before your Lordships.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 40, after ("entertainments") insert ("affording scope for skill and").—(Lord Strabolgi.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has done so with this proviso: instead of the clause being defined to apply to entertainments such as "bazaars, sales of work, fetes and other entertainments of a similar character," at which lotteries can be conducted, in his Amendment he has added to that wording with "affording scope for skill and of a similar character." In moving the Amendment the noble Lord has properly said that it is not his intention to limit that Amendment to such entertainments as bazaars, sales of work and other entertainments which the noble Lord himself admits do not afford any scope for skill, but I submit that the noble Lord in moving his. Amendment has placed it in the wrong line of the clause. If his Amendment stands as he has expressed it, it will imply that the bazaars and sales of work which are to be held will be considered as entertainments of skill. The noble Lord has confined his remarks to entertainments of such a character as fairs and the places at which side shows are held, such as the "Aunt Sally" which the noble Lord quoted, and with which he took for granted I was familiar, and cocoanut shies.

I would point out to the noble Lord that one of the conditions prescribed in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) is that the proceeds of the entertainment shall be devoted to purposes other than private gain, and many of the side shows to which he has referred are not run on this basis. Further, in this Bill there is no restriction on such side shows as the noble Lord has made reference to. That is controlled by the Second Part of the Act of 1853, to which the noble Lord will no doubt make reference on his later Amendment to the Second Schedule, but I can assure the noble Lord, who seems to be under some misapprehension, that the scope of this Bill in no way deals with gaming, to which he attached a large portion of his remarks, and that particular type of amusement; that the Bill is restricted to gambling and betting on the premises of a racing track; and, further, that by his subsequent Amendment, to which this has reference, he would in fact be repealing the Second Part of the Act of 1853.

Therefore, I think it can be clearly understood that the side-shows to which the noble Lord opposite has made reference, such as cocoanut shies, "Aunt Sallies," and the particular amusement called houp-la, will not be restricted by the clause as it now stands, but that if this Amendment were carried, with the subsequent Amendment which the noble Lord has on the Paper, then it would control the Act of 1853, with which this Bill has no connection. On those grounds I hope the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD STRABOLGI

I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his clear and lucid explanation, and after what he has said I have no intention of pressing my Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22:

Exemption of private lotteries.

(2) A private lottery shall be deemed not to be an unlawful lottery, but the following conditions shall be observed in connection with the promotion and conduct of the lottery, that is to say— (d) every ticket shall bear upon the face of it a statement of the persons to whom the sale of tickets or chances by the promoters is restricted, and a statement that no prize won in the lottery shall be paid or delivered by the promoters to any person other than the person to whom the winning ticket or chance was sold by them, and no prize shall be paid or delivered except in accordance with that statement; (e) no ticket or chance shall be issued or alloted by the promoters except by way of sale and upon receipt of the full price thereof, and no money so received by a promoter shall in any circumstances be returned; (f) no tickets in the lottery shall be sent through the post; and (g) before selling any tickets or chances, the promoters shall give by registered letter to the chief officer of police a notice, signed by each of them, stating the purposes for which they intend to promote the lottery and the full names and addresses of each of the promoters.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (2), after "it", to insert "the names and addresses of each of the promoters and". The noble Earl said: Paragraph (g) of Clause 22 (2) proposes that the promoters of an exempted "private lottery" shall, before selling any tickets or chances, give by registered letter to the chief officer of Police a notice signed by each of the promoters stating the purposes for which they intend to promote the lottery and the full names and address of each of the promoters. This proposal has been criticised on the ground that it subjects club lotteries to supervision by the Police and imports a new restriction to which clubs have not been subject in the past. I should like to emphasise, however, that the clause in the Bill does not give the Police any power to supervise club lotteries, nor does it require that the lottery should be approved by the Police, nor does it empower the Police to invade club premises for the purpose of exercising supervision. As the Bill stands, the only circumstances in which the Police can enter club premises in which a lottery is being conducted are if they can satisfy a magistrate, by information on oath, that there is reasonable ground to suspect that the club is not complying with the conditions to be observed in connection with the promotion of an exempted lottery.

Paragraph (g) was designed for the purpose of providing machinery for preventing unlawful lotteries from being promoted surreptitiously under the guise of the exemption in favour of club lotteries. Another object was to provide machinery for enforcing the requirement that tickets in a club lottery should be sold by the promoters only to members of the club, and it is for this reason that it was proposed that the promoters should notify their names and addresses to the Police. The Government, however, realise the strength of the feeling which has been manifested against the proposal requiring clubs to notify to the Police the intention to promote a lottery. They have also been impressed by the possibility of difficulties arising in the case of a lottery promoted by a club at short notice. There is also the further consideration that notification to the Police might be taken to imply that the Police had some responsibility for the conduct of the lottery.

The Government have accordingly decided that the purpose which they had in view could be met in another way, which they think is not open to objection. The effect of this Amendment is that the name and address of each of the promoters is to be printed on the face of any ticket issued in connection with an exempted private lottery. I believe that this Amendment will provide the machinery for the purpose of facilitating enforcement of the provision that tickets in exempted private lotteries should be sold by the promoters only to members of the society or club. I hope that the Amendment will meet the criticism which was raised by Lord Bayford on Second Reading, and I have at some length gone into the purpose of the Amendment in order that the noble Lord who has an Amendment to move will be satisfied with the arrangement that the Government have made.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 4, after ("it") insert ("the names and addresses of each of the promoters and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

LORD JESSEL

My noble friend Lord Bayford is here, but this Amendment has been rather sprung upon him, and I should like to ask the noble Earl who is replying for the Government exactly what is meant by "the name and address of each of the promoters" as regards tickets. It is well known that in many clubs there are no tickets at all. I am only asking for information, for I am sure the Government have considered the matter fully. Will it be sufficient to put the name of the club and the name of the secretary, or will it be necessary to put the whole of the names of the committee or of some responsible person? Perhaps the noble Earl will give us an indication of exactly what is meant by the Government Amendment and also deal with the matter I put forward, that in the case of many of these sweepstakes on Derby lotteries no tickets are issued at all. A man goes into his club, puts his name down opposite a number, and that is all. It will be a great convenience if the noble Lord will tell us what is meant by this proposal, because there is no doubt a great deal of anxiety in the country regarding this matter.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The proposal of the Government is that the names and addresses of the promoters of the lottery should only be issued in connection with those lotteries for which the promoters have found it necessary to issue tickets. If the promoters of any lottery desire, as in the past, that no tickets shall be issued, that arrangement will in no way be changed by the Bill. It is only in those cases where it is found expedient that tickets should be issued that the Government have seen their way to ask that the name and address of the responsible person or persons should be notified to the public in order to avoid the necessity of notification to the Police. I hope that explanation will meet the question raised by the noble Lord.

LORD BAYFORD

The explanation given and the Amendment on the Paper satisfy the point I raised, and I am quite content with the arrangement.

LORD STRABOLGI

I do not think the noble Earl is really familiar with the way these things are done. Has he never been to a church bazaar? Has he never been accosted by a young lady with a cushion in her hand? Has he never been asked to take a ticket for a cushion he did not want and in return receive a numbered ticket, and at the end of the evening's entertainment the prize is drawn out of a hat? You cannot have the names and addresses of the promoters of a lottery in such a case, and that is a lottery within the meaning of this Bill. Really the thing is unworkable, with great respect to the noble Earl and all his advisers.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I should like to reinforce what has been said by the noble Lord opposite. The Amendment is to insert the name and address of each of the promoters. The noble Lord has made it perfectly clear that this provision virtually is confined to the village lottery. In the case of a properly conducted village lottery the promoters are the whole village. In the case of the perfectly conducted village lottery every member who is going to the fete, sale of work, or entertainment is a promoter, and by virtue of his position feels bound to take a ticket in the lottery. That is the perfect village lottery, but if each ticket is to carry all their names and addresses a Bible will be needed for the purpose.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I would point out that both the noble Lord opposite and the noble Earl who last spoke are under some misapprehension, because this clause has nothing whatever to do with the lotteries that have been quoted—that is, bazaar lotteries. Those lotteries are dealt with under a different clause. If, as I have previously said, the promoters of a lottery have in the past, for the expediency of the organisation of such lotteries, found it necessary to issue tickets, they will in future issue the same tickets with the names and addresses of the promoters of such lottery, but the references to the particular class of lottery which have just been made do not have any connection with or bearing upon the present Amendment.

LORD STRABOLGI

Surely, under Clause 22 (1) (a), they have. A church society or boy scouts organisation often run a bazaar in the summer time at a country house and they have just the kind of lottery I attempted to describe. However, I am sure the noble Lord will bear these things in mind for a later stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 17, at end insert ("and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to add to paragraph (f) in subsection (2) "except to members of the society for whom the lottery is promoted." The noble Duke said: As it has already been settled that tickets can only be sold to members of a club or a society, it does seem rather absurd that tickets which have the names of individuals marked on them cannot be sent to the individuals concerned. People have to send them out, and surely they ought to have a receipt if they are living at a distance and cannot visit the premises of the society or club to which they belong. It is a matter of common sense and would do no harm.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 19, after ("post") insert ("except to members of the society for whom the lottery is promoted").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

There are, I think, two reasons why the Amendment of the noble Duke could not be accepted.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

One is enough.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

As the noble Duke says one reason is enough, I will confine my remarks to the first one. The lotteries which exemptions are intended to allow are relatively small in size. It is not desired to encourage a nation-wide organisation such as the Royal Automobile Club to promote a large lottery on a national al scale, and the restriction that the post must not be used for private lotteries will, I think, help to achieve this object. It is not practicable for the Post Office to distinguish between illegal lotteries, exempted lotteries, and illegal lotteries masquerading as exempted lotteries. For reasons of administration it is essential to have a clear line either that the post is not prohibited to any lottery promoter or that it is prohibited to all. I think that reason against the Amendment is sufficient to convince the noble Duke.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

It is not nearly enough to convince me, but the hour is getting late and I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 19, leave out from ("post") to the end of paragraph (g).—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24:

Restriction, on certain prize competitions.

24.—(1) It shall be unlawful to conduct in or through any newspaper, or in connection with any trade or business or the sale of any article to the public—

  1. (a) any competition in which prizes are offered for forecasts of the result either of a future event, or of a past event the result of which is not yet ascertained or not yet generally known;
  2. (b) any other competition success in which does not depend to a substantial degree upon the exercise of skill.

(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence, without prejudice, however, to his liability, if any, to be proceeded against under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act relating to lotteries.

LORD SANDERSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert: "(b) any competition for which entrance fees are required." The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment because I am not satisfied with the method suggested for dealing with these competitions. I do not think that the phrase "substantial degree of skill" is sufficiently definite. What does it mean? I understand that there is no legal meaning at all. If you adopt the clause as it stands I think the result will be that things will be left much as they are with regard to these competitions. Of course there are many small competitions involving a considerable degree of real skill, for which not very large prizes are offered. I think those do not do much harm and they probably give a great deal of amusement to those who enter them. On the other hand, there are competitions in which huge prizes are offered, which really are nothing more than veiled lotteries, and they are not very much veiled. Probably they are familiar to your Lordships.

There are competitions in which prizes of as much as £2,000, or £10 a week for life as an alternative, are offered. Those are very big prizes. There have even been prizes, I believe, of as much as £100,000. Such competitions are really lotteries. Then there are crossword puzzles, any number of them, with very large prizes offered. They are competitions in which there are literally millions of solutions. Mathematicians, I am told, have worked out some of them and have calculated that there are millions of different solutio